1. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    24 Feb '05 19:45
    Also, thanks for agreeing to keep the posts short.

    Bests,

    Aiden
  2. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    24 Feb '05 19:47
    Personal incredulity, personal experiences, and the book from said God are all I can use as evidence and argument. Essentially, it boils down to you asking for objective evidence for a subjective experience. And that I cannot provide.
  3. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    24 Feb '05 20:061 edit
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Personal incredulity, personal experiences, and the book from said God are all I can use as evidence and argument. Essentially, it boils down to you asking for objective evidence for a subjective experience. And that I cannot provide.
    Hi Darfius,

    I dispute a few elements here.

    First, I am not "asking for objective evidence for a subjective experience". I accept that, as a matter of objective fact, you have had a powerful subjective experience. Your posts here provide ample evidence of this.

    What I question is whether your subjective experiences provides any evidence for your religious beliefs.

    Second, if "personal incredulity, personal experiences, and the book from said God" do not provide evidence, then they cannot, by definition, be used as good evidence and sound argument. They can be used for rhetorical purposes, of course, but that does not make them good evidence or sound argument.

    [Note: the last of three, "the book from the said God", presumes the truth of your religious beliefs, and therefore invalidly begs the question.]

    Would you agree that your subjective experiences do not provide any evidence for your religious beliefs?

    Best wishes,

    Aiden

  4. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    24 Feb '05 20:211 edit
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Hi Darfius,

    I dispute a few elements here.

    First, I am not "asking for objective evidence for a subjective experience". I accept that, as a matter of objective fact, you have had a powerful subjective experience. Your posts her ...[text shortened]... evidence for your religious beliefs?

    Best wishes,

    Aiden

    No, because that would be saying I'm some kind of lunatic who regularly has thoughts impressed into my mind that are not mine. Perhaps if I was the sole receipient of said experiences, they could be disregarded, but many, many people have the same experiences that I do.

    If we're all mentally sound and lucid, then one must look for the underlying theme that connects our experiences. And that is faith.

    In other words, faith is the key to unlock the door. The soul cannot be empirically analyzed, so logically, neither can the being responsible for the soul.
  5. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    24 Feb '05 21:384 edits
    Originally posted by Darfius
    No, because that would be saying I'm some kind of lunatic who regularly has thoughts impressed into my mind that are not mine. Perhaps if I was the sole receipient of said experiences, they could be disregarded, but many, many people have ...[text shortened]... zed, so logically, neither can the being responsible for the soul.
    Hi Darfius,

    I asked:

    Would you agree that your subjective experiences do not provide any evidence for your religious beliefs?

    You answered:

    No, because that would be saying I'm some kind of lunatic who regularly has thoughts impressed into my mind that are not mine.

    By saying no to the implied statement that your subjective experiences do not provide any evidence for your religious beliefs, you are logically affirming that they *do* provide such evidence. And your chosen grounds for believing that they do are that, firstly, that you are not a lunatic who regularly has thoughts impressed into his mind.

    Let's suppose that you are NOT a lunatic who regularly has thoughts impressed into his mind. That is hardly enough, by itself, to justify the claim that your subjective experiences provide evidence for your religious beliefs. Those experiences could be misleading even if you are not a lunatic who regularly has thoughts impressed into his mind.
    You don't have to be a lunatic to be misled.

    You went on to claim that:

    Perhaps if I was the sole receipient of said experiences, they could be disregarded, but many, many people have the same experiences that I do.

    This is a precarious line of argument.

    First, it is not the experiences themselves that are in doubt, but their evidential implication. If everyone has conversion experiences like you, and no reason can be found as to why your experiences support your religious beliefs, then there is no reason why such experiences should support other people's religious beliefs either.

    Second, many people have conversion experiences, equal in subjective compellingness to yours, but do not find themselves inclining towards Christian beliefs, but rather to, say, Islamic ones. I have personally met a few such people: the emotional quality of their experiences resemble yours, but their metaphysical content differs.

    Pious Muslims would say exactly the same thing to you concerning their subjective certitude about Islam as you would say to them about your subjective certitude about Christianity. The trouble with these two subjective certitudes, however, it that they refer to logically incompatible religious beliefs; which implies that at least one incompatible religious belief is false; which in turn implies that subjective certitude is fallable in at least one instance. And if in at least one must be false, then why may more than one not be false, or indeed all?

    Unfortunately, the faith to which you incline does not connect everyone's experiences, only the experiences of those who share your faith. Also, technically speaking, faith is not a theme, but strong belief in the absence of evidence.

    What is the "door" you claim that faith "unlocks"?

    I disagree that the soul cannot be empirically analyzed. The Fathers of the Chruch (e.g., Augustine) certainly thought it could be. Psychology can be defined the science of the soul. I would say that the soul can be partly empirically analyzed, though part of it certainly remains metaphysically mysterious.

    Even if the soul cannot be empirically analyzed, it does not follow logically that the being responsible for the soul cannot be empirically analyzed. And even if it were true, I don't see how you could know this to be true. I think your claim falls into the category of sweeping, unverifiable claims. You are also explicitly presuming here that God is responsible for the soul, which is the type of thing we are supposed to be debating.

    Best wishes,

    Aiden
  6. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    25 Feb '05 00:25
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Hi Darfius,

    I asked:

    Would you agree that your subjective experiences do not provide any evidence for your religious beliefs?

    You answered:

    [b] No, because that would be saying I'm some kind of lunatic who regularly has thoughts impressed into my mind that are not mine.


    By saying no to the implied statement that your subject ...[text shortened]... or the soul, which is the type of thing we are supposed to be debating.

    Best wishes,

    Aiden[/b]
    This is getting us nowhere. I cannot describe a spiritual being to you if you will not consider the spiritual.

    Do you know what a prophecy is?
  7. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    25 Feb '05 13:26
    Originally posted by Darfius
    This is getting us nowhere. I cannot describe a spiritual being to you if you will not consider the spiritual.

    Do you know what a prophecy is?
    Hi Darfius,

    I am not opposed to considering the spiritual. Indeed, I would say that I am honestly seriously trying to understand the assertions you make vis a vis the spiritual realm. Thus, I am earnestly *considering* the spiritual, in that sense.

    However, if you make assertions, and they strike me as hard to sustain, for whatever reason, then I will of course point this out. You are then free to rebut my criticisms, and show why they are defective. That, surely, is the nature of debate. I am looking forward to hearing any rebuttals of the points I have made.

    I have read your post carefully, and taken them and you seriously. I have confined myself to addressing your assertions. I would therefore be delighted if you would address my comments, which I have put some thought and effort into.

    Of course I know what a prophecy is. What do you mean by this?

    Best wishes,

    Aiden
  8. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    113689
    25 Feb '05 17:44
    Originally posted by Darfius
    I asked that you please keep discussion of this debate to another thread.

    Thank you.
    If you truly want this to be a debate between just you and pawnokeyhole, then you should do it in PM's. Anything posted in a public forum is fair game for a response.
  9. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    25 Feb '05 20:23
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    If you truly want this to be a debate between just you and pawnokeyhole, then you should do it in PM's. Anything posted in a public forum is fair game for a response.
    Allow me to paraphrase:

    No, Darfius, my mother didn't raise me with manners so I'm afraid I cannot oblige.

  10. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    113689
    27 Feb '05 06:59
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Allow me to paraphrase:

    No, Darfius, my mother didn't raise me with manners so I'm afraid I cannot oblige.

    Sure, let's paraphrase, shall we?

    "No, BigDoggProblem, even though the forums are open to all posters, even guests, we expect you to follow some ad hoc rule that we invented instead of treating a public place as public. We expect you to read our thread, because we would like to have an audience for our debate, but we don't want to be burdened with responding to the opinions of the audience. After all, it's stressful enough to debate one person at a time." -Darfius
  11. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    27 Feb '05 08:34
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    Sure, let's paraphrase, shall we?

    "No, BigDoggProblem, even though the forums are open to all posters, even guests, we expect you to follow some ad hoc rule that we invented instead of treating a public place as public. We expect you to read our thread, because we would like to have an audience for our debate, but we don't want to be burd ...[text shortened]... ns of the audience. After all, it's stressful enough to debate one person at a time." -Darfius
    There's another thread for discussion of debate.
  12. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    27 Feb '05 15:29
    Originally posted by Darfius
    There's another thread for discussion of debate.
    Darfius,

    Now that the kerfuffle with BigDoggProblem is out of the way, can we get back to maturally addressing points of debate? I am still awaiting substantive replies.

    Best wishes,

    Aiden
  13. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    27 Feb '05 19:07
    Hey, Pawn

    Bible passage: Daniel 2:32-33
    Written: about 530 BC
    Fulfilled: Throughout history; to be completed during End Times

    In Daniel 2:32-33, there is a passage that symbolically identified the four great kingdoms that would rise up and control much of world, beginning in Daniel's lifetime. The passage uses symbolic imagery:

    1. The head of gold, as Daniel explained, refers to the Babylonian empire that ruled much of the world about 2600 years ago.

    2. Daniel said that the head-of-gold empire would be followed by an empire symbolized by arms of silver. Christian scholars have often interpreted this to refer to the Medo-Persian empire which later conquered the Babylonian empire. The scholars say that the two arms refer to the two groups - the Medes and the Persians - who comprised the Medo-Persian empire.

    3. The third kingdom was symbolized by the statue's belly and thighs of brass. Some scholars believe that this is a reference to the Grecian empire, which conquered the Medo-Persian empire. The symbol of a belly and thighs of brass suggests that the kingdom was to start out as a united empire but end up as a divided empire. Under the leadership of Alexander the Great, the Grecian Empire was a united empire. But after Alexander's death, the empire was divided into four parts and was later reduced to two parts.

    4. The fourth symbol - that of iron legs and feet that were part iron and part clay - has often been suggested to be a reference to the Roman Empire, which later conquered the Grecian Empire. The Roman Empire was very powerful, but it was also very diverse, claiming dominion over a wide variety of different nations. That diversity later contributed to the downfall of the empire.

    These four kingdoms ruled over much of the world, and each of the four ruled over the land of Israel during times in which a significant number of Jews - and perhaps a majority of Jews - were living in their homeland. Before the collapse of the Roman Empire, Jerusalem was destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced into exile. Even today, a majority of Jews still live outside of Israel. Many Christian scholars suggest that the Roman Empire will be revived and will once again seek to control Israel.

    Quick aside, the European Union refers to itself as the Revived Roman Empire.

    "Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

    This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure."



    I apologize for not being able to keep it shorter, but that is all relevant. And it's a single issue.

    There are many, many more specific prophecies like that, and God gave us those to prove to us that He is outside of time and to serve as a sort of supernatural signature. Unlike Nostradamus, the most famous pagan counterfeit, the Bible's prophecies are always specific and there has never been one that hasn't come true (discounting clearly end time prophecies.)

    Good day,
    Darfius


  14. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    27 Feb '05 20:21
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Hey, Pawn

    Bible passage: Daniel 2:32-33
    Written: about 530 BC
    Fulfilled: Throughout history; to be completed during End Times

    In Daniel 2:32-33, there is a passage that symbolically identified the four great kingdoms that would rise up and control much of world, beginning in Daniel's lifetime. The passage uses symbolic imagery:

    1. The head of ...[text shortened]... ne that hasn't come true (discounting clearly end time prophecies.)

    Good day,
    Darfius


    Hi Darfius,

    Don't you think that symbolically stated prophecies allow for some latitude of interpretation, and as such, lend themselves to verificationist bias?

    Bests,

    Aiden
  15. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    27 Feb '05 20:31
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Hi Darfius,

    Don't you think that symbolically stated prophecies allow for some latitude of interpretation, and as such, lend themselves to verificationist bias?

    Bests,

    Aiden
    I'm not sure how "four world empires will arise" is symbolic, Pawn?

    There've only been four. Hitler tried, the Brits tried, Spain tried, Napolean tried...they all failed.
Back to Top